What aspect of Civ should Firaxis most improve?

[Odin]

Here are my AI gripes:

1. The AI should know the whole map at the begining of the game and know the location of all the resources.

2. The AI needs to be able to adapt to changing situations.

3. The AI needs to mass troops effectively

4. The AI needs to be able to use the specialized units like Paratroopers and artillery.

5. The AI should upgrade obsolete units, not leave spearmen untill modern times.

6. The AI shouldn't place cities in stupid spots so much, like putting cities in the middle of a mass of Mts. and hills with only 2 or 3 farmable tiles so it can't grow, or put a city on tile away from the coast and so nut getting the food bonus from harbors on water tiles.

7. The AI should be able to launch huge invasion fleets.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Silpy
I have three main compliants with the AI

1) They don't understand when they have old units. By 2000 AD they usally still have masses of Warriors and Chariots.

Well honestly I would not really care for this, were it not that those stupid spearman too often still beat my cavalry.

Yesterday I wanted to play a silly easy game on chieftain (kindergarten) level. And the f***ing game time after time beats me up with units less superior then mine.

A bunch of 9 cavalry demolished by 1 single musketman defending a city without taking any damage? get Lost!!!

yes, I know this is not always the case., but the fact that it happens is weird enough. I love the game, but this truly is the thing by far irritating me the most (together with the espionage lottery).

Yes, in real life also a man with a knife can kill a man with a gun, but usually this will be in silent missions, not in open combat. So when a the very same man with gun attacks the knife guy, this should be not an issue anymore.

So I think this part of the game needs the most attention of the developers. The combat system needs far more finetuning and realism.
Some issues:
* Attacking with superior (read "more advanced") units on less superior enemy units should make more chance on success in certain situations. And this of course goes for armies (an army consisting of 3 cavalry destroyed by 1 rifleman? duh...)

In Europe we know a game called "Stratego". Dunno if this is kown on the other side of the ocean, but for those who know: maybe the combat system could use a bit of the relationship between Marshall and spy from stratego.

* Why can bombers not wipe an entire city away? (same goes for artillery and ships). This makes no sense since when you drop enough bombs, everything buns out IRL.

* Same for nukes. Cities of (eg) 5 citizens or less should be blast away. Larger cities should be reduced to half or 1 third of their size.


Lots of examples can be given here, but ya know aht I mean.

Two other issues:
It makes no sense that when you don't attack, the attitude of other civs slowly decreases. Maybe 1 or to leaders should have this attitude, but not all of them. The only way of keping friends now is "buying" them? Of course the attitude could lower, but not further as neutral or something like that. And it especially makes no sense the when having war with 1 civ, through all treaties and mpa's you suddenly are in war with everyone, including civs that are 5 times smaller, which, IRL, would normally think twice before attacking such a large enemy.

Kind regards

[Drachasor]

The reason why less superior units do better in CivIII more often than in Civ II is that there are fewer hitpoints. That means random chance allows the inferior opponent to win more often. More hitpoints makes the battle results closer to average. (Deviations tend not to be enough to kill a unit).

-Drachasor

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Drachasor
The reason why less superior units do better in CivIII more often than in Civ II is that there are fewer hitpoints. That means random chance allows the inferior opponent to win more often. More hitpoints makes the battle results closer to average. (Deviations tend not to be enough to kill a unit).

Which is why I like modifying the usual 3/4/5 hitpoints on the units to something like 3/6/9. Its been a while since I experimented with that but it works nicely.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Vince278


Which is why I like modifying the usual 3/4/5 hitpoints on the units to something like 3/6/9. Its been a while since I experimented with that but it works nicely.

Hmmm... sounds like a real cheat ;-) .
But what I really meant is that not just the power of the units should be more clear, but that the combatsystem should consider the circumstances.

Some examples:
A musketman unit under attack of cavalry in open field should stand no chance. Same in a city should stand a bit more chance. Against a city with walls, infantry actually is pretty useless IRL, so Civ should reflect this.

musketman against tanks should stand no chance at all. Rifleman against tanks should stand some chance (handgranates) but not too much.

Also bombing a city should cause more damage than now (what do they mean "bombardement failed"? If I throw some projectiles in a city it normally at least should hit something. That "Bombardement failed" thing only makes sense with precision strikes.

Rifleman and infantry should be of more value when attacking, they usually are the backbone of every decent army, doffensive as well as defensive. But again, depending on the situation.

When circumstances are becoming a more valid part of the combat system it gives room for players to play more strategic instead of stacking as much units as you can and then flood the enemy (and then get stuck at that single, nearly obsolete unit that just wont die).

When I have 8 units at the same tile, and I attack an enemy unit which resides alone on his tile, I attack with 1 unit. Ridiculous, I have 8. I should be able to decide at that moment how many units are part of the attack. Not specially build army units, but armies on the fly. Also when half my units then is destroyed I should be able to flee and thus keeping the rest of the army.

I know, I know, my fantasy is running away with me, but imagine a civ game like we know, but then with such a sophisticated combat system.

Kind regards

[Dauphin]

Technologically inferior units beating superior units is not historical, and is not accurate, and is annoying for the attacker. That said, it is arguably part of the game mechanic to prevent the most advanced nation steamrolling everything in its path. It allows players who are technologically behind to actually stand a chance.

Basically I think its a game balance issue more than a realism issue.

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by tuckson Against a city with walls, infantry actually is pretty useless IRL, so Civ should reflect this.

But then Civ should also reflect that cavalry is even more useless, because they can't use their advantage (speed) during a siege. At that point, you'll need artillery (or dirty tricks). Hmm, could be interesting if we had that in Civ (and maybe artillery would be more useful than now. Cities could capitulate if you throw enough rocks / cannonballs / bombs on them. Or you could destroy their fortifications that way.)

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Technologically inferior units beating superior units is not historical, and is not accurate, and is annoying for the attacker. That said, it is arguably part of the game mechanic to prevent the most advanced nation steamrolling everything in its path. It allows players who are technologically behind to actually stand a chance.

Basically I think its a game balance issue more than a realism issue.

While the combat certainly needs adjustment (BIG ones, in my opinion), balancing tech rates would become very important in keeping things balanced. Trailblazing in technolog is a little more expensive in Civ 3 than being 3rd or 4th to discover it, but it is still possible to zoom ages ahead of competitors.

More seepage of discovered techs to farther behind Civs should be added. People don't live in vacuums, after all. If one country is full of modern sewers, it doesn't take an enormous effort to figure out that sewers can be built anwhere.

This tech seepage would be realistic, and would help prevent the spearman/tank matchup.

[Max Sinister]

It wasn't among the options, but I think it's not that unimportant too:
Better weighted, more realistic costs! If you compare how much money a new tech or a building or a unit costs, you'll find a lot of values which are way to high / to low. I'm talking especially about the espionage missions with their unbelievable costs.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Max Sinister
It wasn't among the options, but I think it's not that unimportant too:
Better weighted, more realistic costs! If you compare how much money a new tech or a building or a unit costs, you'll find a lot of values which are way to high / to low. I'm talking especially about the espionage missions with their unbelievable costs.

Oh yeah... to mention the espionage costs. Ridiculous that some of those missions cost more than the contents of your treasury.

BTW, I think I mentioned it before, but bombing should be far more effective. I'm in a game right now and using 2 bombers to bomb a city. The only message I got until now frm those 2 bombers is "bombing run failed". Why...? Are these planes flown by blind guys or something?

[Eyn]

I hope they come back to a very-easy-to-use scenario creation capability, not like this "usine a gaz" of Civ3.

If not, i wont buy Civ4, and i'll pray that Firaxis Game devellopers, will burn in hell

I've lost my money with Civ3, i wont make the same mistake again.

[Vince278]

Thats a little harsh. The scenario editor isn't perfect but it is difficult to be all inclusive yet easy to use. I find it adequete but not terribly intuitive if thats what you mean.
I bought the game for the game , not the editor. I found the game to be worth the money (on the discount rack ). The editor was just icing on the cake, we didn't pay extra for it after all.
If you wait on buying Civ4 to be sure you like it there is nothing wrong with that. That is your choice, I'll also wait for the reviews and others opinions then perhaps buy it a few weeks after release. I'm sure if it is a flawed product they will be out the few dollars profit they could have had from us but I'm sure nobody will be burning in hell.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Odin
1. The AI should know the whole map at the begining of the game and know the location of all the resources.

Should?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Technologically inferior units beating superior units is not historical, and is not accurate, and is annoying for the attacker.

I am not sure what you mean. Surely more advanced forces had been beaten by less advanced ones in history.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by tuckson
Rifleman against tanks should stand some chance (handgranates) but not too much.

You must be kidding. Tanks are only good on flat, open ground. If the opposition is in a city, in broken terrain, on hills, on mountains, etc. Tanks eat it.

Originally posted by tuckson
Also bombing a city should cause more damage than now (what do they mean "bombardement failed"? If I throw some projectiles in a city it normally at least should hit something.

Um, do you know how many bombs landed in the countryside during WWII? A lot. Bombing wasn't very accurate. That's why when the Brits were going to bust some Nazi dams the bombers were almost skipping on water.